Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

Post by sjwright » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

ls612 wrote: post #134

sjwright wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but liberal democracy doesn't infer a strict libertarian view on political campaign messaging. I don't want to assume you're American, but your fatalistic view of government sure does point towards that. I suggest you spend some time looking at how other liberal democracies handle this challenge. Online political advertising remains a challenge everywhere but usually the same legal and ethical frameworks ap…

So far as I can tell most other liberal democracies either handle the issue much the same way as the US does or they just flat out ban political parties that are too “fringe”. I wouldn’t trust anyone who wanted to be the censor to be the censor.

Post by FillardMillmore » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

_cairn wrote: post #133

FillardMillmore wrote: post #122

I think the crux of the question raised here is: "Is there anything wrong, ethically or legally, with a social media site accepting payments in exchange for algorithmically amplifying the amount of people that see the paid-for content? Does the answer to this question depend on the veracity of the information presented in the content? If so, does Facebook have some sort of obligation to ensure that paid-for content i…

Agree wholeheartedly with how you posed the question, I would like to expand: Should Adult (xxx) sites be held accountable for ads for male enlargement pills/snake oils? I personally don't think so. Is the answer to this problem to teach our population that blindly accepting what you read is safe (you can trust information posted on social media/public internet sites as fact) OR do we instead teach our citizens to fi…

Post by JohnFen » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #97

v4dok wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed this is the way it works but I think you restrict your view by taking social media as some society constant. If there is no way for the public to find the information it looks for in a meaningful way in facebook or twitter, it will migrate to something else or push it to change. It might push the platforms to feed people with an equal share of all sides instead of feeding them what the "want" and anyone else h…

Paid advertising to get ideas out has existed for at least as long as we've had newspapers and probably a lot longer. Take this case, for example. URL says it all: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/muslims-take-out-full-page-n... It sounds nice to say that we are going to keep some communication channels free of political speech. It is an option. But it is possible (I claim: likely) that more communication leads to bet…

Post by Bostonian » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

Traster wrote: post #4

>Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates It's interesting how hard Zuck is working to try and conflate the idea of 'free speech' with paid advertisements. To put it another way, if advertising on Facebook is part of my free speech, surely Zuck must run my adverts despite the fact I have no mone…

Post by alexandercrohde » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 3:48 PM UTC

quarkral wrote: post #115

adam12 wrote: post #7

Just ban all political ads.

sounds easy but in practice hard. You can run ads on political and social issues that directly correlate with one candidate's campaign. What about those ads? But then you could also be running ads to push a public issue such as climate change independent of anyone's campaign. How do you differentiate between the two?